Erast Benson writes:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:22 -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
>> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:36 -0800, Alex Ross wrote:
>> > > Do you plan to submit your port as an official port to Debian once
>> > it
>> > > stabilizes?
>>
>> > Yes.
>>
>> Wasn't this already discussed regarding CDDL being not compatible with
>> DFSGs?
>>
>> Otherwise, hit myself with a cluebat :)
>>
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00893.html
>> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=why_i_do_think_opensolaris
>> http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?anchor=debian_with_opensolaris_a_broken
>
> World is changed since then, and today we have Nexenta OS. This forces
> community to re-think/re-work all these CDDL vs. GPL issues.
The existence of "Nexenta" does not force the community to do any such
thing. It may encourage that, but "the community" (in particular,
those who look at and think on and deal with DFSG freeness issues) are
much more likely to reexamine the question when license-relevant facts
have changed. For example, MJ Ray's comment in that debian-legal
thread that the CDDL looks non-free when the software is covered by a
patent: Has anything in the CDDL changed about that? Does Sun
represent that OpenSolaris is unencumbered by patent claims? What
about CDDL's choice-of-venue and cost-shifting clauses?
Michael Poole